Subsidizing costs can come in a number of ways. Not just to customers at the point of sale. They could have subsidized labor, materials, patent licensing, and tax breaks. All artificially lowering production costs, to lower prices, to create a Chinese dominant position in the global EV market. Because we know that’s what the Chinese government wants. That’s what the “Belt and Road Initiative” is.
They could have subsidized labor, materials, patent licensing, and tax breaks.
You can play this game in any country by pointing to the publicly available infrastructure and utilities. China having a cheap, robust education and transportation system with low cost public utilities and an efficient legal bureaucracy isn’t a subsidy, its an efficiency.
that’s what the Chinese government wants
That’s what every country wants. You think the Germans and the Brits don’t want Volkswagons or Aston Martins to be the dominant global automotive brand?
That’s what the “Belt and Road Initiative” is.
Claiming the BRI as a subsidy is exactly what I’m talking about. They’re building value-add infrastructure to reduce the natural economic friction of trade and travel. That’s a material improvement to the market, not a state-sponsored loss per unit of production.
China having a cheap, robust education and transportation system with low cost public utilities and an efficient legal bureaucracy isn’t a subsidy, its an efficiency.
None of those are subsidies, or what I ment.
That’s what every country wants. You think the Germans and the Brits don’t want Volkswagons or Aston Martins to be the dominant global automotive brand?
No. They’re certainly not acting like it. Not doing anything serous to support that goal.
Claiming the BRI as a subsidy
Not what I did. It’s an economic global power play, to replace the US and USD as “The” world power. Subsidies are just part of the plan.
You keep mentioning things as if I was talking about them first.
Who are you supposed to be responding to? Are you having multiple conversions and getting us mixed up.
Subsidizing costs can come in a number of ways. Not just to customers at the point of sale. They could have subsidized labor, materials, patent licensing, and tax breaks. All artificially lowering production costs, to lower prices, to create a Chinese dominant position in the global EV market. Because we know that’s what the Chinese government wants. That’s what the “Belt and Road Initiative” is.
You can play this game in any country by pointing to the publicly available infrastructure and utilities. China having a cheap, robust education and transportation system with low cost public utilities and an efficient legal bureaucracy isn’t a subsidy, its an efficiency.
That’s what every country wants. You think the Germans and the Brits don’t want Volkswagons or Aston Martins to be the dominant global automotive brand?
Claiming the BRI as a subsidy is exactly what I’m talking about. They’re building value-add infrastructure to reduce the natural economic friction of trade and travel. That’s a material improvement to the market, not a state-sponsored loss per unit of production.
None of those are subsidies, or what I ment.
No. They’re certainly not acting like it. Not doing anything serous to support that goal.
Not what I did. It’s an economic global power play, to replace the US and USD as “The” world power. Subsidies are just part of the plan.
Building interasiatic high speed rail is no more a power play than digging the Panama Canal or building up the Singapore port network.
These are material improvements to international trade and travel. You’re describing them like some kind of corporate bust out.
You keep mentioning things as if I was talking about them first.
Who are you supposed to be responding to? Are you having multiple conversions and getting us mixed up.